It would just change the way research and progress is done an it would be for the better in my opinion. Look at the food, herbal, vitamin, and generic drug markets. While big pharma is looking for big enough breakthroughs to win them a patent these other industries slowly and consistently improve their products because they know they have to compete in a free market. The same would happen if you got rid of patents.
Now I would argue you change the mission of the FDA. I don't think any compounds should be banned. The manufacturer should also not be liable for the effects of their compounds. They should only be libel if the drug isn't what is listed in the label. The same as food. I can eat peanuts but they can kill others. A food company is only responsible for labeling what's in their. If I have a reaction to an ingredient in their product that is listed that's not their fault.
In the not so distant past (40+ years ago) food especially restaurant food was pretty expensive. People didn't eat at McDonald's every day because they couldn't afford it no matter how poor your self control was.
What has happened is we have become significantly richer and even the poorest people in the US can afford to eat at McDonald's at every meal. The same people that had no self control can now stuff their faces to the point they are 400 lbs. Some of this is market driven and some is the result of farm subsidies that pay farmers to grow for calorie rich nutrient poor foods.
The one I think has the most potential is the liquid battery. Here the "electrodes" are in liquid form and stored in tanks. When depleted they can be pumped out and new liquid pumped in. The benefit is each vehicle could have it's own tank configuration and size as long as the liquids are the same.
Not that anyone is going to read this but I read the report again and my analysis and his matched up except for one thing. He started with an ice volume of nearly 700,000 km^3 while I used 30,000 km^3 which is how he got his conclusion of around a 45mm rise and I got 2.7 mm. So I retract my statements that the paper is flawed. I actually e-mailed the author and he was kind enough to respond to my questions.
After taking off from the Shuttle Landing Facility runway at KSC the Shuttle and Shuttle Carrier Aircraft looped around and did a 200 ft flyby down the runway. Pretty neat.
I mentioned that in the bottom. I don't claim to be smart enough to figure out the real sea rise if all of the sea ice melts. I am just attempting to prove the author of this particular paper is incorrect and that his experiment was not applicable to sea level rise.
I am not a PhD so I don't know how to go about publishing a paper to refute this. Any ideas? Should I e-mail the author? Contact some right wing denier website? Anyone have any ideas?
I reviewed it and I think he made the same error I mentioned above. I ran my own numbers on his calculations and got the same answers. I am going to e-mail him the analysis I wrote above and ask him for comment.
There is a big flaw in this experiment. You have to look at salinity change. In the example you linked to it looks like half salt water and half ice. So the final mix is 1/2 the salinity. Assume the density started at 1.03 kg/L the final mix would be 1.015 kg/L. When the fresh ice is floating it is displacing it's weight in salt water.
So assume.5 kg of salt water at 1.03 kg/L and.5 kg of ice at.92 kg/L. The volume as indicated by liquid level would be 1kg/1.03 kg/L =.97 L
OK now you melt the fresh water and it mixes to get 1.015kg/L solution =.985L
OK it goes up about 1.5%. This looks reasonably close to what their experiment showed.
But lets do it in a 10:1 and a 100:1 mixture of sea water to ice
Both start at 5.5 kg/1.03 kg/L = 5.34 L 5kg salt water.5 kg ice = (5 kg * 1.03 kg/L +.5 kg * 1 kg/L )/5.5kg = 1.027 kg/L 5.5kg/1.027 kg/L = 5.36 L or 0.5 % increase
50kg salt water.5 kg ice = (50 kg * 1.03 kg/L +.5 kg * 1 kg/L )/50.5kg = 1.0297 kg/L 5.341 L or 0.02 % increase
The rise keeps going down with the increase in ratio of sea water to ice.
For reference the world sea ice varies but from what I can find is around 3x10^4 km^3. The volume of the ocean is 1.3x10^9 km^3. So using these values:
Ice mass 3x10^4 km^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 = 3.000x10^16 kg Sea Water mass 1.3x10^9 km^3 * 1030 kg/m^3 = 1.339x10^21 kg
Initial Volume (3x10^16 kg + 1.339x10^21 kg)/1.03 kg/L = 1.300029x10^21 L
Final Density (1.339x10^21 kg * 1.03 kg/L + 3x10^16 kg * 1 kg/L )/(1.339x10^21 kg + 3x10^16 kg) = 1.029999 kg/L Final Volume = (3.000x10^16 kg + 1.339x10^21 kg) / 1.029999 kg/L = 1.300030x10^21 L or 7.7x10^-7 increase.
The surface area of the oceans is 361x10^6 km^2 which is 3.61x10^14m^2 The initial average depth of the ocean is 1.300029x10^21 L / 3.61x10^14m^2 = 3601.188 m The final average depth of the ocean is 1.300030x10^21 L / 3.61x10^14m^2 = 3601.191 m
So the ocean rise from all fresh water ice melting and mixing would be 2.7mm
Just to mess it up further there are various temperature and salinity gradients in the ocean by location and depth which require a more complex analysis than I will write here.
You missed the point. Floating Ice by virtue of it floating is displacing the same amount of liquid water it contains when melted. Experiment.
Take a Styrofoam cup. Fill it with ice. Pour enough water to float the ice and reach the rim of the glass. Some ice will be floating above the rim. Wait for it to melt and no water will spill.
I am an engineer and when I first started having design reviews in relatively large groups > 25 people. I was terrible at it. I couldn't think on my feet and explain things clearly. I had stage fright and I just talked so I wouldn't appear foolish because thinking under that pressure was difficult. As I gained experience it became much more natural and now I feel like what I say in those groups is actually what I am thinking.
I think the same thing is happening here. Someone has filled out a questionnaire and is now being asked to read aloud (uncomfortable for many) and then defend their opinions (also difficult for many). Many people just want to get out of those situations and not appear foolish and don't take time to think.
This is something as a mechanical engineer I notice quite often. Many people of different backgrounds come up with mechanical designs that on the surface may look feasible. But when someone with a mechanical engineering education and years of experience takes a look at it they know instantly where the problems are and whether they can be overcome. The question is when do you bring in the engineer? If it's an idea that's cheap to test and if failure is safe and permissible than go ahead and try. If you are going to spend a lot of money building it or if it fails it could kill someone it might be smart to hire someone that knows what they are doing.
It's the same with code. Heck I write code all of the time to figure out numerical solutions to differential equations or to program routines in CAD software. But I wouldn't try to write my own control system software for something that if it fails would hurt someone. I get people who know what they are doing and I write requirements and work with them to produce a safe product.
There may be a middle ground. I think most people against tracking don't want all of their private information collected. Things like looking up what that bump means or some other personal problem. Instead you could have a system like Pandora. A thumbs up and thumbs down. If you are on a website and an ad for hemorrhoid cream shows up you can click on the thumbs down so in the future it doesn't display ads like that.
I'm always looking up crap on Amazon I'd never buy because I'm curious to read the reviews. Then next time I'm on a website it throws an ad for it the browser. Most of the time if I actually want something from Amazon I ordered it.
This would be better for companies buying the ads because they aren't wasting money on people that have no intention on buying their product.
It is difficult carrying all that bacon around. He should just use FBRN's since you can exchange them for real bacon at any grocery store. Those people that say the Federal Bacon Reserve is printing more FBRN's than they have bacon in Fort Pork are conspiracy theorists.
It depends. Consumers had abandoned General Motors and drove them into bankruptcy. But luckily for them they own enough politicians so they just stole $50 Billion from Bond holders and another $50 Billion from the same people that won't buy their cars and BOOM back in business making cars nobody wants.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for saving me the trouble of writing.
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Gift-Tax
NASA is working on it.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/ground/resolverover.html
It would just change the way research and progress is done an it would be for the better in my opinion. Look at the food, herbal, vitamin, and generic drug markets. While big pharma is looking for big enough breakthroughs to win them a patent these other industries slowly and consistently improve their products because they know they have to compete in a free market. The same would happen if you got rid of patents.
Now I would argue you change the mission of the FDA. I don't think any compounds should be banned. The manufacturer should also not be liable for the effects of their compounds. They should only be libel if the drug isn't what is listed in the label. The same as food. I can eat peanuts but they can kill others. A food company is only responsible for labeling what's in their. If I have a reaction to an ingredient in their product that is listed that's not their fault.
If someone cuts me off I want my AI driver to perform a PIT maneuver and make them slide off the cliff.
There are a few dark places on the moon as in never receives the light of the Sun. They are craters at the North and South Pole.
In the not so distant past (40+ years ago) food especially restaurant food was pretty expensive. People didn't eat at McDonald's every day because they couldn't afford it no matter how poor your self control was.
What has happened is we have become significantly richer and even the poorest people in the US can afford to eat at McDonald's at every meal. The same people that had no self control can now stuff their faces to the point they are 400 lbs. Some of this is market driven and some is the result of farm subsidies that pay farmers to grow for calorie rich nutrient poor foods.
You have it backwards.
There were and are all sorts of restaurants. The consumers have CHOSEN to spend their money at places that serve food they like.
If you are fighting insurgents you are most likely in the wrong side.
And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.
The one I think has the most potential is the liquid battery. Here the "electrodes" are in liquid form and stored in tanks. When depleted they can be pumped out and new liquid pumped in. The benefit is each vehicle could have it's own tank configuration and size as long as the liquids are the same.
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/mits-liquid-battery-could-refuel-minutes-30157.html
Not that anyone is going to read this but I read the report again and my analysis and his matched up except for one thing. He started with an ice volume of nearly 700,000 km^3 while I used 30,000 km^3 which is how he got his conclusion of around a 45mm rise and I got 2.7 mm. So I retract my statements that the paper is flawed. I actually e-mailed the author and he was kind enough to respond to my questions.
And they took them all back.
Very true. Odds are against it but...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_satellites_in_retrograde_orbit
Let's check your Math.
The Russians charge $50 million per seat or for Progress 4000 lbs of payload.
At $500 million per shuttle launch you get
7 seats = $350 million
40,000 lbs = $500 million
So you have to pay the Russians $850 million to do what we could do with the Shuttles for $500 million.
After taking off from the Shuttle Landing Facility runway at KSC the Shuttle and Shuttle Carrier Aircraft looped around and did a 200 ft flyby down the runway. Pretty neat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOYoiIxZgO4
I mentioned that in the bottom. I don't claim to be smart enough to figure out the real sea rise if all of the sea ice melts. I am just attempting to prove the author of this particular paper is incorrect and that his experiment was not applicable to sea level rise.
I am not a PhD so I don't know how to go about publishing a paper to refute this. Any ideas? Should I e-mail the author? Contact some right wing denier website?
Anyone have any ideas?
Thanks for the link.
In case anyone wants to read the .pdf a free copy is on his page here. http://home.comcast.net/~pdnoerd/NoerdlingerBrower.pdf
I reviewed it and I think he made the same error I mentioned above. I ran my own numbers on his calculations and got the same answers. I am going to e-mail him the analysis I wrote above and ask him for comment.
Thanks
There is a big flaw in this experiment. You have to look at salinity change. In the example you linked to it looks like half salt water and half ice. So the final mix is 1/2 the salinity. Assume the density started at 1.03 kg/L the final mix would be 1.015 kg/L. When the fresh ice is floating it is displacing it's weight in salt water.
So assume .5 kg of salt water at 1.03 kg/L and .5 kg of ice at .92 kg/L. .97 L
The volume as indicated by liquid level would be 1kg/1.03 kg/L =
OK now you melt the fresh water and it mixes to get 1.015kg/L solution = .985L
OK it goes up about 1.5%. This looks reasonably close to what their experiment showed.
But lets do it in a 10:1 and a 100:1 mixture of sea water to ice
Both start at 5.5 kg/1.03 kg/L = 5.34 L .5 kg ice = (5 kg * 1.03 kg/L + .5 kg * 1 kg/L )/5.5kg = 1.027 kg/L
5kg salt water
5.5kg/1.027 kg/L = 5.36 L or 0.5 % increase
50kg salt water .5 kg ice = (50 kg * 1.03 kg/L + .5 kg * 1 kg/L )/50.5kg = 1.0297 kg/L
5.341 L or 0.02 % increase
The rise keeps going down with the increase in ratio of sea water to ice.
For reference the world sea ice varies but from what I can find is around 3x10^4 km^3.
The volume of the ocean is 1.3x10^9 km^3. So using these values:
Ice mass
3x10^4 km^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 = 3.000x10^16 kg
Sea Water mass
1.3x10^9 km^3 * 1030 kg/m^3 = 1.339x10^21 kg
Initial Volume (3x10^16 kg + 1.339x10^21 kg)/1.03 kg/L = 1.300029x10^21 L
Final Density (1.339x10^21 kg * 1.03 kg/L + 3x10^16 kg * 1 kg/L )/(1.339x10^21 kg + 3x10^16 kg) = 1.029999 kg/L
Final Volume = (3.000x10^16 kg + 1.339x10^21 kg) / 1.029999 kg/L = 1.300030x10^21 L or 7.7x10^-7 increase.
The surface area of the oceans is 361x10^6 km^2 which is 3.61x10^14m^2
The initial average depth of the ocean is 1.300029x10^21 L / 3.61x10^14m^2 = 3601.188 m
The final average depth of the ocean is 1.300030x10^21 L / 3.61x10^14m^2 = 3601.191 m
So the ocean rise from all fresh water ice melting and mixing would be 2.7mm
Just to mess it up further there are various temperature and salinity gradients in the ocean by location and depth which require a more complex analysis than I will write here.
You missed the point. Floating Ice by virtue of it floating is displacing the same amount of liquid water it contains when melted. Experiment.
Take a Styrofoam cup. Fill it with ice. Pour enough water to float the ice and reach the rim of the glass. Some ice will be floating above the rim. Wait for it to melt and no water will spill.
I am an engineer and when I first started having design reviews in relatively large groups > 25 people. I was terrible at it. I couldn't think on my feet and explain things clearly. I had stage fright and I just talked so I wouldn't appear foolish because thinking under that pressure was difficult. As I gained experience it became much more natural and now I feel like what I say in those groups is actually what I am thinking.
I think the same thing is happening here. Someone has filled out a questionnaire and is now being asked to read aloud (uncomfortable for many) and then defend their opinions (also difficult for many). Many people just want to get out of those situations and not appear foolish and don't take time to think.
This is something as a mechanical engineer I notice quite often. Many people of different backgrounds come up with mechanical designs that on the surface may look feasible. But when someone with a mechanical engineering education and years of experience takes a look at it they know instantly where the problems are and whether they can be overcome. The question is when do you bring in the engineer? If it's an idea that's cheap to test and if failure is safe and permissible than go ahead and try. If you are going to spend a lot of money building it or if it fails it could kill someone it might be smart to hire someone that knows what they are doing.
It's the same with code. Heck I write code all of the time to figure out numerical solutions to differential equations or to program routines in CAD software. But I wouldn't try to write my own control system software for something that if it fails would hurt someone. I get people who know what they are doing and I write requirements and work with them to produce a safe product.
There may be a middle ground. I think most people against tracking don't want all of their private information collected. Things like looking up what that bump means or some other personal problem. Instead you could have a system like Pandora. A thumbs up and thumbs down. If you are on a website and an ad for hemorrhoid cream shows up you can click on the thumbs down so in the future it doesn't display ads like that.
I'm always looking up crap on Amazon I'd never buy because I'm curious to read the reviews. Then next time I'm on a website it throws an ad for it the browser. Most of the time if I actually want something from Amazon I ordered it.
This would be better for companies buying the ads because they aren't wasting money on people that have no intention on buying their product.
It is difficult carrying all that bacon around. He should just use FBRN's since you can exchange them for real bacon at any grocery store. Those people that say the Federal Bacon Reserve is printing more FBRN's than they have bacon in Fort Pork are conspiracy theorists.
It depends. Consumers had abandoned General Motors and drove them into bankruptcy. But luckily for them they own enough politicians so they just stole $50 Billion from Bond holders and another $50 Billion from the same people that won't buy their cars and BOOM back in business making cars nobody wants.